Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leviak B. Kelly


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. None of the new editors arguing for keeping provide any real basis for the article meeting the notability guidelines, while the delete arguments convincing show it does not. Davewild (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Leviak B. Kelly

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence found that the author meets any notability guidelines (e.g. WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:AUTHOR) and the article is purely one-sided and POV pushing. His book Religion: The Ultimate STD? is apparently self-published by CreateSpace, and there don't seem to be enough reliable, independent sources to write a neutral article without merely summarizing what Kelly says in his non-notable book, contra to WP:PROMO. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Could only find self-published or simple author profile pages. Agree that Kelly doesn't meet the necessary notability guidelines. Bordwall( talk &frasl; ctrb ) 18:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I cannot find any third-party sources. Book is self-published. Note also that the article was created today (May 31) so shall check back after a few days to see if author has added more information. LaMona (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I can find four places where he's been quoted, and one interview. (Here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuCC8lTyNjQ, here: http://www.paduiblog.com/pa-dui/ever-met-a-judge-in-america-who-is-against-free-speech-we-have/, here: https://medium.com/@andrianagc/the-reality-of-the-zombie-apocalypse-1bc032ad5bcc, here: http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/03/18/seeking_a_mean.html, and here: http://pvsmokesignal.com/open-letter-to-our-community-from-the-pvhs-human-rights-league/) AlixeTiir (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * None of those sources are what we consider reliable sources. They are user-generated or otherwise self-published. Furthermore, the quotes are trivial coverage, and in two instances (The Advice Goddess Blog and The Smoke Signal a quote appears in the comments section. I don't doubt this person exists, nor that some people have read or even enjoyed his one book, but notability requires thorough coverage from trustworthy, impartial sources, not a namedrop from anyone with a blog, podcast, or YouTube channel. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Bordwall. Snappy (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - several sources are on the page and one is an hour long interview. These sources are third-party sources. Elizabeth Ryri (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to nom: This account is newly minted and has made exactly one edit -- this one. LaMona (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - While I know the quotations may seem like trivial sources, the interview isn't, and I've seen articles on wikipedia before that use interviews on yuotube as citations. Spookyeditorialguy (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to nom: The above is the author of the article. They are a new user, and the first five of their seven edits were on this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In certain cases, interviews are cited to support particular facts. However, those interviews are not sufficient to establish notability. Interviews are not considered to be neutral, third-party resources. You may find articles on WP that use interviews, and also that do not have other reliable resources, but that just means that you have found poorly sourced articles; it doesn't make lack of sources to be ok. LaMona (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up to LaMona, interviews can be used to verify elements, but do not count towards Notability because they are Primary sources. There is nothing wrong with interviews, YouTube or otherwise, provided notability has been sufficiently demonstrated from other sources, but in this case notability has not been demonstrated. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding the interview: I find it not reassuring that The Pew has exactly one video: the interview. Hardly a reputable, reliable source, i.e. one exercising editorial control and fact-checking per WP:RS. I could interview my cat and post it to YouTube, and maybe get a couple hundred views, but that doesn't make my cat any more deserving of an article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There's a very long interview plus multiple quotations. I don't see what's not notable. RenardFjord2014 (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to nom: This is a new account, and the above was its first edit. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you read any of the relevant policies or guidelines we're discussing, for example Notability for people or more specific Notability for authors? Please suggest how a single interview from a random you tube account and scattered name-dropping on blogs (or anonymous posts in comments) demonstrates this person has met any criteria for inclusion. If you can find any reliable, impartial sources that neutrally discuss the book or author in any depth, please include them, otherwise this is pure promotion. Note: I find it a little suspicious that User:RenardFjord2014 is the second recently-created account after User:Elizabeth Ryri whose first or only edit was a keep vote in this discussion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG/ There are literally NO independent reliable sources about this person or his book. The references at the article are an interview by "The Pew", which doesn't seem to exist except for that one youtube interview; Createspace, a self-publisher; and Religion the Ultimate STD, the author's or book's own web page. The Keep arguments from the SPAs are unconvincing and not policy based. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.